ALABAMA CLAIMS. 39 



dence, for the decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration, 

 and could not be a question affecting the integrity or 

 force of the Treaty. 



No expression or even intimation of the question of | 

 &quot; direct or indirect&quot; appears on the face of the Treaty. 



And, in the long diplomatic correspondence which 

 ensued on this subject, it was conclusively demon 

 strated by Mr. Fish, and was, in effect, admitted by / 

 Lord Granville, that no agreement, promise, or under-* 

 standing existed on the part of the Commissioners to, 

 qualify the clear and explicit language of the Treaty/ 



CAUSE OF THIS AGITATION. 



Hence we might well infer or believe that the su 

 perficial or apparent question, which so agitated peo 

 ple of high intelligence and practical sense like the 

 English, was not the real or true one. It was not. 

 And, in order to understand the causes of the storm 

 of discussion which broke over England when the 

 tenor of the American Case came to be fully appre 

 hended there, and of the real consternation which 

 seemed to prevail on the subject, it is necessary to 

 take into consideration certain facts wholly independ 

 ent of the American Case and the Treaty. 



On occasion of the rejection by the United States 

 of the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty, with Mr. Sumuer s 

 speech as a commentary on that act, England came 

 distinctly to comprehend, what she had been fre 

 quently told before but would not believe, that the 

 United States attributed the prolongation of our Civ 

 il War largely to her premature recognition of the 



